Presentation on theme: "Netcong Public School Preliminary Budget Discussion Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Presented By: Melissa N. Flach-Bammer, Acting Superintendent Christine M. Werner,"— Presentation transcript:
Netcong Public School Preliminary Budget Discussion Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Presented By: Melissa N. Flach-Bammer, Acting Superintendent Christine M. Werner, Business Admin/Board Sec’y
Discussion Topics: ~ What was cut from the current year budget? ~ Where is the money being spent and what are the fixed costs? ~ Cost savings measures being considered for 2011-2012.
Elementary School Teacher(s) – 2 FTE (one position restored with one retirement and one position restored due to class size and use of EDJobs funds) ESL Teacher – Reduced from F/T to P/T Speech Teacher – Reduced from F/T to P/T Elimination of Basic Skills Improvement Program Elimination of Basketball Program 2010-2011 School Budget Reductions~
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE 2011-2012 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT STUDENT ENROLLMENT/STAFFINGSTUDENT ENROLLMENT/STAFFING CONTRACTED SALARIESCONTRACTED SALARIES CONTRACTED HEALTH BENEFITSCONTRACTED HEALTH BENEFITS MANDATED SPECIAL EDUCATION SPENDINGMANDATED SPECIAL EDUCATION SPENDING MANDATED INSURANCE (GEN. LIABILITY, WKR. COMP)MANDATED INSURANCE (GEN. LIABILITY, WKR. COMP) STATE MANDATED TESTING SERVICESSTATE MANDATED TESTING SERVICES MANDATED ELECTION COSTS, ETC.MANDATED ELECTION COSTS, ETC.
Current Year Budget Last year, as you may remember, the Governor reduced the state aid for Netcong by $200,074 which equates to (18%). Efficiencies are an integral part of the ability for our district to provide for a quality instructional program reflecting a fiscal sensitivity to the residents and taxpayers of the Netcong School Community. 2009-20102010-2011% Change Total Budget $4,277,369 $4,039,079Diff: ($238,290) -5.57%
Netcong Elementary School is Efficient~ In November, the NJDOE requested that each district provide the Executive County Superintendent Review of Efficiency Standards (N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-9.3) regarding the 2010-2011 school year budget in preparation for developing the 2011-2012 school year budget. After review of our submission and narrative the Netcong Administration received the following memorandum:
Netcong Elementary School is Efficient~ Memo To: Melissa Flach-Bammer., Superintendent of Schools Christine Werner, School Business Administrator From:Kathleen C. Serafino, PhD., Executive County Superintendent Ralph H. Goodwin, Executive County Business Administrator, Interim Date:February 22, 2011 Re: Review of 2010-11 Adopted Budget and 2009-10 Budget Efficiency Standards as it relates to the development of the 2011-12 school budget In November, you were asked to provide selected information related to a review of efficiency standards required by the NJDOE. Your responses are valuable to us in our ability to perform this review. It is recognized that knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the local program and service offerings is retained by the district administration and board of education. The county administration’s ability to observe and make recommendations is limited to their knowledge of other school districts and comparative data for the district. It is the belief of this office that district administrators are closest to the circumstances and are the best informed to lead their boards in the budget development process. We hope to offer objective comparative review and assistance. The ultimate responsibility to develop a budget that meets the given needs of the children of the district resides with the local administration and board. The regulations have a primary focus on administrative and non-instructional expenditures that are compared to districts of similar size and configuration or Comparative Spending Group (CSG). Additionally, the county office reviews previous district budgets, audits, and other compliance reports to discover areas where adjustments might be made. As your district moves forward with the development of the 2011-12 budget, we expect that you would address the items that we have identified as a result of our review. By no means is this to be considered an exhaustive list; instead, the foundation of adjustments that need to be incorporated in the district’s future planning, both short-term and long-term.
Our review found a two-year rate of change in the on-roll student population of -1.10%. This relatively stable student population makes it difficult to identify potential savings in the employee section of the budget. However, it is expected that attention be given to the staffing levels of the district— including instructional, administrative and support staff. It was noted that the district’s overall comparative per pupil (CPP) cost increased by nearly 6.3% in the 2010-11 budget. Some of this increase is related to the decline of enrollment, however, not all of it. It is hoped that the district will identify further savings in the budget for FY12. The district has successfully addressed cost containment in the areas analyzed by the department. The district’s costs in the areas of administration, educational support and operation of plant are all below the CSG median. The only area that can be sighted as above is in the area of legal costs. It is hoped that this is due to a limited situation and will not result in such spending levels in the future. The district has implemented many of the efficient business practices suggested by the department by not having classroom aides, having a self-funded food service program, soliciting quotes for professional services, planned textbook ordering, educationally focused library purchases, and not providing for a public relations staff position. For these efforts, the administration and the board of education are to be praised! Patterns of over/under budgeting were sought in a review the district’s prior three budgets verses their year-end audits. Where patterns were identified, it was noted that the district’s 2010-11 budget had already been adjusted to reflect that consideration. This indicates that the district is utilizing the longitudinal data to guide its spending.As residents of New Jersey and Morris County continue to struggle with the slowly recovering economy all governmental units are asked to aggressively seek out all potential savings in their budgets. Home foreclosures are at an all-time high, unemployment is at its highest level in recent years, and hope for recovery is seen on the far distant horizon. We trust that you and the board of education will be mindful of these issues as you plan for the 20011-12 school year. As you know, the Executive County Superintendent has the authority, pursuant to NJAC 6A:23A-9.1(d), “to order any changes in proposed expenditures that are found unsuitable, inappropriate or unreasonable.” However, no such action is anticipated, as we know that you join us in the concern about the balance between the integrity of the district’s program/service offerings and the ability of the local taxpayers to bear the tax burden. In summary, we have no specific recommendation to offer. The district administration and board of education are to be commended for their efforts to control the costs of providing a through and efficient education to the children of Netcong. We look forward to our ongoing exchange of ideas as the budget development process continues. Please contact our office for an appointment only if you wish to review our suggestions in more detail.
NJDOE Comparative Spending Guide Per Pupil Costs Total Cost Per Pupil – Indicator 1 Operating Type K-8 / 0-400 Students (Total of 67 School Districts) Budget 2009-10 2009-2010 Per Pupil Cost Ranking State Average—Operating Type K-8 $12,811 NETCONG $11,593 6 Of all the K-8 school districts throughout the state with enrollment of 0-400, Netcong ranked 6 of 67 with the rankings from Low Cost to High Cost. Per pupil cost is $11,593 and the state average is $12,811. We are $1,218 less than the state average. There are four districts in Morris County that are categorized as type K-8, 0-400 students. Netcong’s ranking is as follows: DistrictBudget 2009-10: Per Pupil Cost 2009-2010 Ranking Harding Township$19,66259 Mount Arlington$15,80143 Riverdale Borough$13,41323 Netcong Borough$11,5936
DRAFT – For Discussion Only 2011-2012 Maximum Permitted Revenue Increase (2% Tax Levy) $ 54,369 2011-2012 State Aid ?????
DRAFT – For Discussion Only The Netcong Board of Education and Administration is making every effort to retain and restore educational programs that were eliminated from the 2010-2011 school year budget. We are committed to providing a quality instructional program reflecting a sensitivity to the residents and taxpayers of the Netcong school community.
DRAFT – For Discussion Only 2011-2012 Budget Timeline February 22, 2011Regular Board of Education Meeting February 22-24, 2011Release of State Aid March 1, 2011Special Board of Education Meeting BOE Detailed Budget Presentation and Board of Education Approves Proposal to Submit to Executive County Superintendent March 4, 2011Completed budget due to County Office March 22, 2011Last day for Budget Approval by ECS March 29, 2011Public Hearing and Adoption of Budget April 27, 2011 (WED.)School Election May 3, 2011Annual Reorganization Meeting